Rajeev Kumar Mahajan vs The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr.

Delivered by Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member-(Judicial):-

Heard Shri Rajeev Kumar Mahajan, applicant in person and Shri Bharat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing of the case.

Earlier, the matter was allowed by this Tribunal vide its order dated 18.09.2025. However, the said order was challenged by the respondents before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ A No.18590/2025 and the Allahabad High Court vide its judgment and order dated 25.03.2026 allowed the aforesaid Writ Petition, setting aside the order dated 18.09.2025 passed in this Original Application. However, the matter was remanded back to this Tribunal to hear and decide the OA afresh by taking into consideration the fact of filing of the charge-sheet on 09.05.2023 and subsequent proceeding, if any, before the criminal Court. Subsequently, the matter was revived and respective parties filed their affidavits.

Initially the applicant filed the of this original application with the following main reliefs:-

The facts were earlier narrated in the order dated 18.09.2025. However, for better appreciation of the matter, the relevant facts are repeated again. The applicant, who initially joined as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) English in 2009 at Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), was promoted to Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) English in 2012. Thereafter, he qualified the KVS Departmental Exam for the post of Vice Principal and was posted in KV, Jodhpur, Doda in 2019.

On the other hand, earlier counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents on 02.05.2024, wherein it has been stated that the applicant was initially appointed in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan as Trained Graduate Teacher (hereinafter referred as TGT) English in 2009, and later promoted to Post Graduate Teacher (hereinafter referred as PGT) in 2012. Further through Departmental Examination he qualified for post of Vice Principal and posted at Jodhpur, Doda Jammu and Kashmir where he was caught red-handed at the time of taking bribe by ACB, J&K while officiating as Principal. The post of Principal in KVS is very prestigious one and he/she is role model for the students and teacher of the Vidyalaya. The image of Principal needs to be clean having high moral. Therefore, the promotion through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, (hereinafter referred to as LDCE) of the applicant for the post of Principal is kept in abeyance till his Vigilance Clearance is received.

In reply, rejoinder affidavit has been filed from the side of the applicant on 06.05.2024, in which he has reiterated the averments as made in Original Application. However, it has been stated that a frivolous compliant has been lodged by one parent who got the applicant involved in a false case of bribe as he wanted to take revenge from the applicant for not fulfilling his illegal demand of doing admission of his daughter. The KVS higher authorities acknowledged the innocence of the applicant after going through his representation and revoked his suspension within three months of the unfortunate incident that took place in May 2021. The respondents have not initiated any department proceedings against the applicant which itself proves the vagueness and falseness of their claim. The respondents have wrongly concluded that „a mere sanction for prosecution‟ makes the case of employee fall in point (iii) of DOP&T O.M. dated 14.09.1992. Actually the criminal case becomes pending only when the charges are framed and chargesheet is issued to the concerned employee by the court.

The respondents have also filed the supplementary counter affidavit on 04.04.2025, in which it is stated that the latest guidelines issued vide DOPT OM No. 104/33/2024-AVD-IA dated 09.10.2024 also reiterate that Vigilance Clearance shall be decided on the case to case basis by the Competent Authority, keeping in view the sensitivity of the purpose, gravity of the allegations/charges, and facts and circumstances, in the following situations:-

After the order passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ A No.18590/2025, the applicant filed a supplementary affidavit on 24.04.2026, wherein it is stated that as per KVS LDCE 2022 (Notification for the post of Principal), the crucial date for vigilance Clearance was 01.04.2022 much prior to file of charge-sheet. In the said Advertisement, it was clearly mentioned that the applicant must go through the instruction, eligibility conditions/criteria mentioned in this Notification carefully and ensure that he she fulfills all the conditions of eligibility regarding education professional qualifications, service experience, vigilance /disciplinary clearance on the crucial dates of eligibility for the post for which he /she applying.” Further, for all purposes an eligibility will be established/decided as on the first day of the vacancy year i.e. 1^st January for the years 2018 to 2020 and 1^st April for 2021 to 2023 of the particular vacancy year. However, if the disciplinary case is pending/contemplated, against any of the employees on the crucial date of eligibility, concerned employee may be allowed provisionally to appear in LDCE subject to final outcome of the proceedings.

In reply, the respondents also filed a counter affidavit on 22.05.2026, wherein it has been stated that the last date for submission of online application was 16.11.2022. The applicant applied for the post in question and was also selected to the post in question. He was also issued appointment letter with a condition that n disciplinary /vigilance case is pending/contemplated against him and he is not under currency of any penalty. After receiving the information from his controlling Officer regarding FIR No.01/2021 was registered by ACB (J & K) against the applicant and the matter was pending, the aforesaid order of appointment dated 16.08.2023 was kept in abeyance till the final outcome of the case vide Memorandum dated 21.08.2023. Mere inclusion of the name of the applicant in the select list or absence of a charge –sheet as on 01.04.2022 does not confer any indefeasible or vested right to appointment. The applicant only possesses a right of consideration, whereas appointment remains subject to the satisfaction of the appointing Authority regarding vigilance status, antecedents, integrity and overall suitability. Pendency of a criminal case disentitles an employee from claiming appointment as a matter of right, particularly when the appointment authority is required to assess vigilance status and suitability for holding the higher and responsible post of Principal, who is required to discharge duties as a Drawing and Disbursing Officer and head of the academic institution. Since the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.01/2021 are still pending before the competent Court, the applicant is entitled for any relief. The Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Doda vide order dated 01.04.2026 observed that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 read with Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly, framed formal charges against him. The matter was under investigation much prior to the impugned order. The prosecution sanctioned was granted vide order dated 07.03.2023, which is much prior to the issuance of result and charge-sheet was filed on 09.05.2023 before issuance of offer of appointment letter. Therefore, the action of the respondents is justified in keeping the offer of appointment in abeyance vide order dated 21.08.2023. The previous service record or past performance cannot override the requirement of vigilance clearance and suitability for appointment to a higher post.

In reply, the applicant filed a rejoinder reply on 22.05.2026, reiterated the same averment as made in the earlier supplementary affidavit/rejoinder affidavit.

The respondents also filed supplementary counter affidavits on 10.08.2026 and 13.08.2026, brining on record that the status of criminal case, complaint, FIR as well as charge-sheet.

The applicant also filed supplementary affidavit-II on 20.08.2026 regarding the present status of the proceedings of quashing petition filed by the applicant before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and important details of criminal case pending against him and other relevant facts.

The applicant submitted that he was duly selected for promotion to the post of Principal pursuant to LDCE-2022 and an appointment order was issued on 16.08.2023. However, his promotion was kept in abeyance vide order dated 21.08.2023 on the ground of pendency of the ACB case, although the applicant had disclosed the said case during the selection process. As per the KVS LDCE-2022 Notification, 01.04.2022 was the crucial date for determining eligibility, including vigilance/disciplinary clearance. On the said date, no charge-sheet had been filed against him and the charge-sheet came to be filed only on 09.05.2023. Therefore, the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet could not retrospectively affect his eligibility, which stood determined on the prescribed crucial date.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contention of the applicant and submitted that the applicant was selected for the post of Principal through LDCE-2022, but the offer of appointment was kept in abeyance vide memorandum dated 21.08.2023 after receipt of information regarding FIR No.01/2021 registered by ACB, J&K and the pendency of the criminal case. The appointment was subject to the condition that no disciplinary/vigilance case was pending or contemplated against the applicant and that mere inclusion in the select list or issuance of an appointment order did not confer any indefeasible or vested right to appointment.

We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

Earlier the matter was allowed by this Tribunal vide its order dated 18.09.2025. However, the said order was challenged by the respondents before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ A No.18590/2025 and the Allahabad High Court vide its order dated 25.03.2026 allowed the aforesaid Writ Petition, setting aside the order dated 18.09.2025 passed in this Original Application. However, the matter was remanded back to this Tribunal to hear and decide the OA afresh by taking into consideration the fact of filing of the charge-sheet on 09.05.2023 and subsequent proceeding, if any, before the criminal Court. The relevant para of the order of High Court is quoted as under:-

In view of the aforesaid remand order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court, the following issues arise for our consideration:

Since the Issues No. I and II framed for consideration are closely interlinked and arise out of the same factual and legal controversy, they are being considered together.

Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to notice the undisputed chronology of events. The applicant was admittedly involved in a trap case registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, J&K, vide FIR No.01/2021 dated 03.05.2021 under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was placed under suspension on the same date. His suspension was subsequently revoked on 31.07.2021 and he resumed his duties. Thereafter, the LDCE notification was issued on 02.11.2022 and 01.04.2022 was prescribed as the crucial date for determining eligibility. The applicant participated in the LDCE examination held on 22.01.2023. Subsequently, sanction for prosecution was granted by the competent authority on 07.03.2023, the result of the LDCE was declared on 25.04.2023 and the charge-sheet/challan was filed before the competent Criminal Court on 09.05.2023. Thereafter, a provisional appointment letter to the post of Principal was issued to the applicant on 16.08.2023; however, the same was kept in abeyance vide order dated 21.08.2023 on account of the pending vigilance/criminal proceedings.

The applicant has sought to build his case primarily around the crucial date of 01.04.2022. According to him, on that date no charge-sheet had been filed before the Criminal Court and, therefore, there was no criminal case pending against him. It is further contended that he was permitted to participate in the LDCE, subsequently declared successful, and the result was declared on 25.04.2023. According to the applicant, the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet on 09.05.2023 could not retrospectively alter the eligibility which had already been determined with reference to crucial date of eligibility i.e. on 01.04.2022. Reliance has also been placed upon the principle that the conditions of eligibility cannot be altered after commencement or completion of the selection process. The aforesaid submission, however, proceeds on the assumption that the only relevant consideration for the present purpose is whether a criminal case was pending before the Criminal Court on 01.04.2022. In our considered view, that is not the complete issue which arises for determination. The applicant was seeking appointment to the post of Principal, and such appointment was subject to fulfillment of the applicable conditions, including the requirement of vigilance clearance.

Therefore, the question which assumes significance is whether the applicant could claim vigilance clearance as a matter of right when, on the relevant date, he was admittedly involved in a trap case on charges of corruption and investigation in the said case was pending. In this regard, the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2007 governing vigilance clearance is material. Clause (viii) thereof specifically refers to the situation where the vigilance shall not be withheld unless “the officer is involved in a trap/raid case on charges of corruption and investigation is pending.” For better appreciation of the matter, aforesaid OM is quoted as under:-

The said Clause was also mentioned in the OM dated 21.06.2013 as well as OM Dated 28.09.2022, meaning thereby, said OM dated 14.12.2007 & 21.06.2013 were existed at the time of filling of application form for the said post.

The language used in the said clause is significantly important. The vigilance instructions do not make the filing of a charge-sheet before the Criminal Court the sole or indispensable condition for withholding vigilance clearance in every case. An officer‟s involvement in a trap/raid case on charges of corruption, coupled with pendency of investigation, is itself specifically recognized as a relevant circumstance for withholding vigilance clearance. The Central Vigilance Commission has also issued several guidelines/clarifications for issuance of vigilance clearance certificate, which read as under:-

In the present case, the applicant‟s involvement in the trap case is not in dispute. The FIR was registered on 03.05.2021 and the investigation arising therefrom was pending on 01.04.2022. Thus, the factual situation contemplated under clause 2 c (viii) of the aforesaid Office Memorandum existed much before the crucial date prescribed for the LDCE i.e. 01.04.2022 and, in fact, much before the applicant participated in the examination. The applicant, therefore, cannot contend that the absence of a charge-sheet on 01.04.2022, by itself, entitled him to vigilance clearance.

It is necessary at this stage to distinguish between pendency of a criminal case before a Court and pendency of investigation in a vigilance/trap case for the purpose of grant of vigilance clearance. The two expressions cannot be treated as interchangeable in all contexts. The requirement of vigilance clearance is governed by the applicable vigilance instructions, and those instructions specifically take into account different stages of vigilance and criminal proceedings. In a trap case, the instructions expressly recognize the stage of pending investigation as a circumstance relevant for withholding vigilance clearance.

The applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Others (supra) and has submitted that mere pendency of investigation before filing of the charge-sheet cannot be treated as pendency of a criminal case. We have given due consideration to the said submission. However, the principle laid down in the said decision cannot be mechanically extended to the present controversy so as to nullify the specific vigilance instructions applicable to a trap case. The principle in K.V. Jankiraman (supra) has to be understood in the context of the issue which was before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The controversy before us, however, concerns the applicant‟s entitlement to vigilance clearance for actual appointment to the post of Principal, and not merely the question as to when a criminal proceeding should be treated as pending for purposes of keeping the promotion of the applicant in abeyance. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that filing of the charge-sheet is relevant for determining the pendency of a criminal case in the context relied upon by the applicant, such proposition does not dispense with the separate requirement of vigilance clearance where the governing instructions specifically cover an officer involved in a trap/raid case and the investigation is pending.

We are, therefore, not persuaded to hold that the absence of a charge-sheet as on 01.04.2022 necessarily resulted in the applicant becoming entitled to vigilance clearance. Such a conclusion would render clause (viii) of the DoPT Office Memorandum practically redundant in cases where a trap investigation is pending but the investigating agency has not yet filed the charge-sheet. Such an interpretation cannot be accepted when the vigilance instructions themselves specifically contemplate pending investigation in a trap/raid case as a circumstance relevant to vigilance clearance.

It is equally important to notice that the applicant‟s participation in the LDCE does not, by itself, establish that he possessed an absolute right to be appointed. Participation in a selection examination and declaration of a candidate as successful are distinct from the actual appointment to a post where fulfillment of further conditions is prescribed. A candidate may be permitted to participate in an examination, and even be declared successful, subject to verification and fulfillment of the conditions governing actual appointment. The applicant cannot, therefore, derive an indefeasible right to appointment merely from the fact that he was permitted to participate in the LDCE and subsequently qualified therein.

Further, in the present case, the requirement of vigilance/disciplinary clearance was not introduced after the selection process. It was part of the conditions governing eligibility and appointment as per the terms and condition of the Advertisement. Therefore, the consideration of the applicant‟s vigilance status at the stage of actual appointment cannot be termed as a change in the “rules of the game”. The principle that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has commenced is undoubtedly well settled, but the said principle has no application where the respondents are merely applying an existing condition concerning vigilance clearance at the stage of actual appointment.

Further, the fact that the applicant was permitted to appear in the LDCE despite the pending ACB case also does not amount to an irrevocable decision by the respondents that he was entitled to vigilance clearance. The applicant‟s participation could at best result in his consideration in the selection process. It could not create a right to appointment contrary to the applicable vigilance instructions. More particularly, the applicant cannot claim that an error, omission or provisional consideration by the authorities at an earlier stage would compel them to grant appointment despite the absence of the requisite vigilance clearance.

We also find significance in the fact that the applicant himself had disclosed the ACB case during the selection process. Therefore, the respondents were not confronted with a new or suppressed fact. The criminal/vigilance proceedings were already known and were continuing throughout the relevant period. The subsequent developments were merely further stages in the same proceedings.

The subsequent developments are, nevertheless, relevant for another reason. Sanction for prosecution was granted on 07.03.2023, i.e. before declaration of the LDCE result on 25.04.2023. Thereafter, the charge-sheet/challan was filed before the competent Criminal Court on 09.05.2023, i.e. well before the provisional appointment letter dated 16.08.2023. Thus, when the question of actual appointment arose, the position was materially different from what it had been at the initial stage of the selection process. The criminal proceedings had progressed from investigation to sanction for prosecution and thereafter to filing of the charge-sheet before the Criminal Court.

In such circumstances, the respondents cannot be expected to ignore the subsequent material developments and proceed to grant final appointment as a matter of course merely because the applicant had earlier qualified the LDCE. The provisional appointment dated 16.08.2023 could not, in the facts of the case, confer a vested or indefeasible right upon the applicant, particularly when the matter of vigilance clearance was still required to be examined and the criminal proceedings had by then progressed substantially.

We may clarify that we are not holding that the charge-sheet dated 09.05.2023 retrospectively altered the applicant‟s eligibility as on 01.04.2022. We are conscious of the applicant‟s contention in this regard and do not consider it necessary to reject the same in those terms. The applicant‟s claim fails on an anterior and independent ground, namely, that on the relevant date itself he was involved in a trap case on charges of corruption and investigation in that case was pending, attracting clause (viii) of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2007.

Consequently, the subsequent charge-sheet is not being treated as the event which first rendered the applicant ineligible. Rather, the charge-sheet and the further criminal proceedings are relevant subsequent developments which the respondents were entitled to consider before finalizing the applicant‟s appointment. This approach also avoids giving retrospective operation to the charge-sheet while, at the same time, giving due effect to the subsequent criminal proceedings as directed by the Hon‟ble High Court.

The revocation of the applicant‟s suspension on 31.07.2021 also does not alter the position. Revocation of suspension, by itself, cannot be treated as a finding of exoneration from the allegations forming the subject matter of the trap case. Similarly, the absence of a departmental disciplinary proceeding cannot automatically confer vigilance clearance on the applicant where the specific vigilance instructions independently deal with a situation where an officer is involved in a trap/raid case on corruption charges with investigation pending.

The nature of the post to which the applicant seeks appointment also cannot be lost sight of. The post of Principal in a Kendriya Vidyalaya involves substantial administrative and institutional responsibilities and requires the incumbent to discharge duties involving, inter alia, supervision of the institution, financial and administrative functions and responsibilities towards students and staff. The requirement of vigilance clearance for such a post cannot, therefore, be regarded as an empty formality. The competent authority is entitled to ensure that the person appointed to such a sensitive post satisfies the applicable vigilance requirements.

The subsequent order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Doda, whereby formal charges have been framed against the applicant, has also been brought to our notice pursuant to the remand made by the Hon‟ble High Court. The said order shows that the criminal proceedings have continued and have reached the stage of framing of charges. However, we clarify that the said subsequent order is not being made the foundation of our decision. The validity of the impugned action dated 21.08.2023 has to be tested primarily with reference to the circumstances existing when the decision was taken. We also refrain from expressing any opinion whatsoever on the merits of the criminal case, which shall be decided independently by the competent Criminal Court.

Thus, on a cumulative consideration of the entire matter, we find that the applicant‟s case cannot succeed merely because the charge-sheet was filed after the crucial date or after the LDCE examination. The applicant was already involved in a trap case on corruption charges and the investigation was pending on the crucial date. The specific vigilance instructions applicable to such a situation operated independently of the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet. Therefore, the applicant had no enforceable right to insist upon grant of vigilance clearance merely on the strength of his having participated in and qualified the LDCE.

It follows that the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet dated 09.05.2023 is not being given retrospective effect so as to make the applicant ineligible as on 01.04.2022. At the same time, the said development, having taken place before the actual appointment and having been followed by continuation of the criminal proceedings, constituted a relevant circumstance which the respondents were justified in considering while deciding the question of final vigilance clearance.

We are, therefore, of the considered view that the applicant cannot claim a vested or indefeasible right to appointment to the post of Principal merely on the basis of his having participated in and qualified the LDCE. The eligibility conditions, including the requirement of vigilance clearance, were required to be satisfied, and the applicant was admittedly involved in a trap case on charges of corruption, in which investigation was pending. Clause (viii) of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2007 specifically recognizes involvement in a trap/raid case on charges of corruption, where investigation is pending, as a circumstance in which vigilance clearance may be withheld. The said circumstance existed much prior to the conduct of the LDCE and the applicant, therefore, could not claim that his participation in the examination or his subsequent declaration as successful wiped out the impediment relating to vigilance clearance.

The subsequent sanction for prosecution dated 07.03.2023, filing of the charge-sheet dated 09.05.2023 and the further proceedings before the competent Criminal Court furnished additional material which was legitimately available to the respondents before the applicant was actually appointed. The provisional appointment dated 16.08.2023, therefore, could not confer any absolute right upon the applicant, particularly when the appointment remained subject to fulfillment of the requisite vigilance conditions. The judgments relied upon by the applicant are no help to him.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the applicant has failed to establish that he was entitled to vigilance clearance or that he acquired an indefeasible right to appointment to the post of Principal merely by qualifying the LDCE. The respondents were justified in withholding the requisite vigilance clearance and in keeping the provisional appointment in abeyance.

Accordingly, both Issues No. I and II are answered against the applicant.

Consequently, the impugned memorandum/order dated 21.08.2023, whereby the provisional appointment of the applicant to the post of Principal was kept in abeyance on account of the pending vigilance/criminal proceedings, does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference by this Tribunal.

The Original Application is, accordingly, dismissed.

No order as to costs.

All the related MAs stand disposed of.